A Federal Court Paused Oregon's EPR Law: What Companies Should Know

On February 6, 2026, a federal court granted a preliminary injunction in National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors (NAW) v. Oregon Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ), temporarily halting enforcement of the state's Recycling Modernization Act against the National Association of Wholesaler-Distributors and its members. The ruling does not invalidate Oregon's law, but it signals that at least one federal court sees constitutional problems with how these programs are structured. That matters because Oregon's structure isn't unique: California, Colorado, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington have also enacted EPR statutes and nearly all follow the same blueprint.

The Ruling: Narrow Order, Broad Signal

The court found that two of NAWD's claims cleared the preliminary injunction threshold: its challenges under the Dormant Commerce Clause and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. NAW argued that Oregon's fee structure and reporting requirements burden interstate supply chains, and that producers face due process concerns in being compelled to participate in a program administered by a single private organization—including non-negotiable contractual terms, fees set using a confidential methodology, and disputes channeled to private arbitration rather than a public forum. The court's reasoning was delivered orally and is not reflected in the written order, which only states that “there is a likelihood of irreparable injury, and the balance of hardships tips sharply in favor of Plaintiff.”

NAW's other claims were dismissed with leave to amend. 

Practical Implications

The injunction is narrower than headlines suggest

First, the order enjoins Defendant Leah Feldon, in her capacity as DEQ Director, from enforcing the Act against NAW and its members. Circular Action Alliance (CAA), appointed to administer the Oregon EPR program, is not a party to the case and is not enjoined. That means CAA can still issue invoices, send delinquency notices, and administer the program.  DEQ simply cannot refer enforce the law against NAW members while the injunction holds.

CAA continues implementing the program as outlined in the approved RMA framework. That includes maintaining all producer-facing timelines and support resources as planned, including registration, reporting, invoicing and payment schedules, and other implementation activities administered by CAA.

Second, as a legal matter, the order directly applies to NAW and the parties covered by the court's injunction—non-members are not automatically protected simply because they operate in the same market. Practically, however, defendants sometimes choose to pause enforcement more broadly, either for internal coordination reasons or because an attempt to enforce against a different party could prompt a similar motion and a similar result. 

The constitutional concerns the court credited are not Oregon-specific

Mandatory single-PRO participation, proprietary fee methodologies, and take-it-or-leave-it producer agreements are common features across the emerging EPR landscape. Companies operating in multiple EPR states now face a compliance environment where the foundational legal framework is actively being contested.  This extends beyond the consumer products companies most visibly affected. EPR statutes define "covered materials" and "producers" broadly enough to potentially reach printed paper products —marketing materials, and other business communications—meaning that other consumer-facing and service-sector companies may have obligations.

What to Watch

A merits ruling following the July trial could arrive before several state programs reach their next major compliance milestones. The outcome may shape not just Oregon's program but the viability of the regulatory model other states have adopted. Companies that begin evaluating their exposure and reviewing the contractual terms of any PRO agreements now will be better positioned regardless of how the court ultimately rules.